Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-30 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 21-32 are drawn to another method performed by an AMF wherein it has the capability to set a payload container type information element (claims 21, 25, 26 and 30) and communication with a SMF (claims 24 and 29).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-32 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Examiner suggests Applicant amending the impending claims to include a feature that includes communicating with a SMF and then adding all the newly added sets of claims for examination to make all the sets of claims cohesive in nature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sadique does nit disclose the limitations of
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF), a downlink (DL) non access stratum (NAS) TRANSPORT message including information on a cause indicating that a public land mobile network (PLMN) is not allowed to operate at a location of the UE;
identifying whether the DL NAS TRANSPORT message includes a 5th generation session management (5GSM) message, the 5GSM message not being forwarded; and
in case that the DL NAS TRANSPORT message includes the information on the cause, determining not to transmit, to the AMF, an uplink (UL) NAS TRANSPORT message to transport any of one or more data types (Remarks Page 15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to assert that due to the broadness of the claim language, Sadique does disclose said argued limitations,
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF), a downlink (DL) non access stratum (NAS) TRANSPORT message including information on a cause indicating that a public land mobile network (PLMN) is not allowed to operate at a location of the UE ([0128]-[0129], [0138]-[0140]: AMF sending to the UE a NAS rejection message with reason for rejection, such as PLMN not supported in current country location);
identifying whether the DL NAS TRANSPORT message includes a 5th generation session management (5GSM) message, the 5GSM message not being forwarded ([0140]: wherein the NAS response may OPTIONALLY include the extended 5GMM cause IE within the message); and
in case that the DL NAS TRANSPORT message includes the information on the cause, determining not to transmit, to the AMF, an uplink (UL) NAS TRANSPORT message to transport any of one or more data types ([0141]: the UE refrains from performing PLMN search and registration procedures).
Newly added claims 31-32 are newly rejected as shown below with the newly incorporate reference of Kim et al.
Therefore due to the broadness of the claim language, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance and are still rejected as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sadique et al. (US 2022/0232463; hereinafter Sadique).
Regarding claims 1, and 10, Sadique discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF), a downlink (DL) non access stratum (NAS) TRANSPORT message including information on a cause indicating that a public land mobile network (PLMN) is not allowed to operate at a location of the UE ([0128]-[0129], [0138]-[0140]: AMF sending to the UE a NAS rejection message with reason for rejection, such as PLMN not supported in current country location);
identifying whether the DL NAS TRANSPORT message includes a 5th generation session management (5GSM) message, the 5GSM message not being forwarded ([0140]: wherein the NAS response may OPTIONALLY include the extended 5GMM cause IE within the message); and
in case that the DL NAS TRANSPORT message includes the information on the cause, determining not to transmit, to the AMF, an uplink (UL) NAS TRANSPORT message to transport any of one or more data types ([0141]: the UE refrains from performing PLMN search and registration procedures),
wherein the UE has registered to the PLMN that is not allowed to operate at the location of the UE ([0128]-[0129], [0138]-[0140]: AMF sending to the UE a NAS rejection message with reason for rejection, such as PLMN not supported in current country location).
Claims 2, and 11, Sadique discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE has registered to the PLMN via a satellite next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) cell ([0130]: UE reselecting to NG-RAN on a different PLMN), and
wherein the DL NAS TRANSPORT message including the information on the cause is received from the satellite NG-RAN cell (Fig. 5; [0148]: satellite transmit DL message).
Regarding claims 3, and 12, Sadique discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more data types include at least one of:
a single 5th generation session management (5GSM) message ([0140]: 5GMM cause IE within the message);
short message service (SMS);
a long term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) message;
a service object request (SOR) transparent container;
a UE policy container;
a UE parameters update transparent container;
a location services message;
a cellular internet of things (CIoT) user data container; or
a service-level-anonymous access (AA) container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadique in view of Kim et al. (2018/0376444; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Sadique discloses all the particulars of the claim (including the use of IE in paragraph [0140]) except for the limitation of wherein the identifying includes identifying whether a payload container type element (IE) is set to N1 SM information.
However, Kim does disclose the limitations of wherein the identifying includes identifying whether a payload container type element (IE) is set to N1 SM information ([0352], [0477]-[0478]: NAS SM signaling exchange between UE and SMF through N1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Kim’s disclosure to further provide PDU session ID and re-establishment indication.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights